01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

November 25,201~ -- Page 5 unconstitutional, and invalid parts of the 2001 and 2002 ordinances. DECISION: Rever~ed, A court order was inappropriate in this case because other adequate legal remedies to challenge the denial:of the variance were available. Only when a zoning Ordinance failed to-prescribe a method of judicial review could a court order a board to allow a variance based on an assumption of unconstitutional/ty. The board only had to have the opportunity to pant a vari- ance to correct any constitutional defects specific to the applicant's property,. Here, there was a presumption that the members of the board would do their duty and obey the law as enacted by the .legislature and as declared and inter- preted by the courts. Consequently, if the ordinances upon which they relied were declared invalid and unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdic- tion, they would not continue to apply those ordinances. Based on the above considerations, a court order demanding the board to allow Wal-Mart's sign was unnecessary. see also: Outdoor Systems v. Cobb Count, 555 S.E. 2d 689 (2001). Variance-- Board i'mds continuous ownership creates a substantial hardship Use of property' pre-exists zoning code Cirario~: Horace v. Zoning 'Board of Appeals of the Town of Salem, Appellate Co~trt of Connecticut, No. AC 24665 (2004) COblNECTICUT (09/21/04) -- Nechamen, the owner of residentially-zoned prop- erty, submitted a variance application to the Zoning Board or'Appeals of the Town of Salem. The property housed an automobile repair shop and a used car dealerst'fip, which were both in e~stence prior to the enactment of zoning regulations, Conse- quently, Nechamen's use of the land was a pre-ex_isting nonconforming use. Nechamen requested permission to expand the building substantially by constructing an t,800-square-foot garage addition and a 375-square-foot hand/- capped-accessible office. The board granted the variance, reasoning the property had been i.n the same continuous ownership since before the establishment Of the zoning regulations, and literal enforcement of the regulations would result in exceptional hardship. Horace, a neighboring property owner, sued. The court ruled in favor of the board. Horace appealed, arguing the variance was illegally granted. DECISION: Reversed. According to Salem's.zoning mgulati0ns, the board could only ~ant a variance ii' two conditions were met: 1) the variance would not substantially affect the zoning plan: and 2) adherence to the zoning ordinance would cause unusual hard- snip annecessary ~.o rte caruing ,3ut ,)f the general purpose of the zomng plan. © 2000- Quinlan ?u~iisning Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more !nformation please call 16i7) 542-0048. 89